Tech Companies Say Don't Blame Canada For Copyright Problems

An anonymous reader writes "The Computer & Communications Industry Association, which includes a who's-who of the tech world, including Microsoft, Google, T-Mobile, Fujitsu, AMD, eBay, Intuit, Oracle, and Yahoo, has issued a strong defense of current Canadian copyright law, arguing that the US is wrong to place Canada on the annual Special 301 list. The submission argues that the US should not criticize Canada for not implementing anti-circumvention rules (PDF) and warns against using the Special 301 process to 'remake the world in the image of the DMCA.'"

Comments

Proudly Canadian

[KazW]

I love the fact that I can download copy written content without penalty as long as I don't redistribute it... Fuckin' eh!!

Re:Proudly Canadian

[twidarkling]

Yep. Personally, I'm a big fan of the fact that we can format-shift, and make copies of friends' music, and stuff like that. I recognize the necessity to respect copyright, but the US has gone completely overboard, and few industries have any idea of the proper way to deal with it.

(In case any industry movers/shakers are reading this, the proper way isn't DRM, it's increasing ease and accessibility of your work.)

Re:Proudly Canadian

[realityimpaired]

Unless the ISP gets a complaint from the copyright holder, they're not going to warn you for it. They do use traffic shaping to deprioritize traffic like BitTorrent, though, so you might notice lower transfer rates during peak hours, but that's about it.

And you're right, the ISP is much happier to charge you for the overage. In fact, most of those ISPs will actually sell you bandwidth "insurance" packages to allow you to have the overage... Bell, for example, will charge $5/month per 40GB extra you buy, to a maximum of 120GB.

Re:Proudly Canadian

[epp_b]

Perhaps it's that Canadian copyright law was wisely crafted with the future in mind.

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are these companies when it comes to US legislation?

Re:So...

[coekie]

The document is mostly about the Special 301 process, but they've used the opportunity to comment on US law:

• on DMCA notice and takedown:

  [...] the world in the image of the DMCA, a world in which millions of automated cease-and-desist requests based on computer-generated allegations automatically trigger the blocking and take down of material, including of lawfully posted material, all without any due process or any judicial involvement.

• About DRM ("rights against circumventing TPMs"):

  [...] the desires of certain rightsholder constituencies which seek to ban activities that are permitted under the copyright laws through the backdoor of a digital technological lock.

  wrong-headed policy; [...] cripple their own industries' innovation and damage the welfare of their own consumers.

There is nothing new to the average Slashdot reader in there; it's saying the same as many here have already ranted: DMCA is bad, DRM is not about copyright but a backdoor to gain more control over customers, and it is silly and damaging. But considering which companies this text comes from, I'd say this is some quite strong language that can not be misunderstood by US law makers.

You're on the list

[sakdoctor]

I vaguely remember at primary school, the use of friends/enemies lists in the ongoing process of classroom politics.

Apparently some people never grow out of classroom politics, and go on to become actual politicians. "Canada can't come to my birthday party."

Insanity.

[headkase]

My personal opinion, as a Canadian, is that copyright regulation such as in the USA is insane. With that in mind I am proud of my Government for resisting the tide. There is a balance that needs to be drawn somewhere, I do not believe it is where industry in the USA would like it to be. With this in mind, let the USA go all hysterical: as the pendulum swings around with other parties such as my Government providing some balance the theory, and hope, is that it will eventually settle somewhere sane.

Re:Insanity.

[Anonymous Coward]

My personal opinion, as a Canadian, is that copyright regulation such as in the USA is insane.

We disagree. They seem perfectly sane to us.

-Disney.

Re:Insanity.

[RealGrouchy]

With that in mind I am proud of my Government for resisting the tide.

Don't be too hasty. The Government would have passed draconian copyright legislation a long time ago (they've tried a few times) if it weren't for the fact that it's a minority government.

- RG>

Re:Insanity.

[Courageous]

I really don't think it's the democratic elements of a government that would lead, in this particular case, to the thing you don't like. It's the representative aspects, who are kowtowing to the corporate influences, who will do so.

IMO,

C//

Re:US influence

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Well, first of all, the Constitution doesn't say that all men are created equal; the Declaration of Independence does. (Lots of Americans get those mixed up too.) The former is, in theory the supreme law of the land, while the latter is a document of great moral authority but no legal authority. But yes, it was written by a slaveowner, and that paradox occupied a great deal of the nation's early existence. It kind of came to a head in this little dustup a century and a half ago. Since then, we still haven't fully dealt with the consequences.

The basic problem is, you ask ten different Americans to tell you what "freedom" means, and you'll get eleven different definitions. Some are concerned almost exclusively with economic freedom; as long as they can make money, they're happy, regardless of what else may be going on. Some focus on social freedom: who they sleep with, where (or whether) they worship, what substances they can put in their bodies. Some are concerned primarily with freedom from foreign military threats; pretty much everyone agrees this is a prerequisite for the other freedoms, but there are and always have been many who take their concern with it to fanatical extremes -- they forget that in order to defend our freedom from those who want to take it away, we must have freedom left to defend.

And no matter what kind of freedom people are most worried about, a regrettably large number will say, in effect, "I've got my freedom, screw yours." Thus those fighting for the Confederacy, and their latter-day counterparts in white sheets and pointy hats, could claim in all seriousness that they were fighting for freedom: their freedom, and the fact that preserving their view of freedom meant denying it to large numbers of the people who lived in their society didn't bother them at all. Thus the flag could be defined as the symbol of freedom, and freedom limited to those who wished to pledge allegiance to it. Thus any act, no matter how vile, that was anti-communist could be defined as serving the interests of freedom.

Personally, my definition of freedom includes not only my freedom to do what I want to do, but others' freedom to do what they want to do, including things that I personally have no desire to do. But this definition is far from universally accepted. I don't think this is an exclusively American problem by any means, but it does seem like we're a bit better at others at fooling ourselves into thinking we're implementing a universal definition of freedom, while picking and choosing our freedoms carefully in practice.